Steering Wheels Collision

EDIT: A v1.2 test build can be found at this post.
You may know if you've ever created a car for Re-Volt that as far as collisions are concerned a car wheel is in fact just a sphere, whose radius and position can be adjusted (with Offset2) relatively to the fix point (Offset1) of the PRM model (ie. the 3D mesh used to draw the wheel).

When polishing the camber feature I noticed it can make the wheels sink into the ground, so this glitch led me to wonder whether those spheres actually move when steering, in the same way that the PRM model do, or if they simply remain static (as I started to believe)... And I noticed that no, they didn't move at all (except along the vertical axis according to the shocks position). It's not noticeable if the Offset2 value is close to 0 in the parameters.txt. But as soon as this value increase, the difference when steering between the wheel you see and the actual collision in-game become more noticeable.

Amongst stock cars, with its (-13 0 0) Offset2 value, the Rotor in the one for which this effect is the most noticeable.

You can try it yourself: if you touch a wall with the front wheels then steer to the left or to the right, the car will not move, and one wheel may more or less noticeably sink into the wall.

To illustrate that, here's a top view of the rotor with the collision spheres drawn as white circles:

Current behavior

You can see that on steering the wheels move but the collision spheres stand perfectly still.(if you can't see the animation you're likely using IE, aren't you? then... go to hell )

This behavior is also boring for the camber, because one has to edit the Offset2 value to compensate for the visual shift of the PRM wheel model. I was curious to try to properly apply the axes orientation to the collision sphere too. I hackily updated the computations, and here what I came up with:

Proper behavior

You'll notice that the white circle now properly follow the visible wheel, and that the car body nicely moves because of the contact of the front wheels with the wall.

Now the question is, what to do with this? We have a quite long story of any physics modification being rejected because "they are no longer as before"... I currently have no confirmation whether it modifies or not the car behavior (it should not, the only thing it should do is make it more consistent with the visual, but who knows...). I'm not sure yet it can actually works either
We could add an option to activate it only with a special keyword in the parameters, it doesn't sounds like a bad solution. But in that case we would likely have to release updated parameters file for the stock cars so that they can benefit from it. And if we do that for all stock cars then why not enabling it by default...?

Players & car makers, let us know what you think, and if any car maker has already been facing this issue (as it actually prevents to create cars with long visible axles for example).

I'd just like to mention, anything to make "Simulation" feel less arcade-y is a positive in my book. I can understand some people's concerns, these new computations may be game-breaking with customs, but I think a lot of people may deal with the change well.

While we're on the subject of code modifications, is there any way to use, say, something similar to cubic beziers to define the shape of the collision?

Wheel spheres moving means that the car’s support base (the four wheel spheres) changes shape in curves (not to mention those with three or two wheels). That may affect the behaviour of especially finely tuned custom cars (many parameters, including inertia, are connected to distances between wheels and that will change now). So better make it an extra parameter, so there’ll be no whining afterwards that something stopped working.

All my stuff is available here and there, and all my videos are available there.
-----
CW

jigebren @ Feb 10 2015, 12:56 AM wrote: We could add an option to activate it only with a special keyword in the parameters, it doesn't sounds like a bad solution. But in that case we would likely have to release updated parameters file for the stock cars so that they can benefit from it.

Doing this as an optional parameter option wouldn't make any sense to me. Why should only some cars have this behaviour and others not?
Plus if you want to avoid a commotion about "changed physics" and "only having it optional" this wouldn't be the way to do it if you really would update all stock cars parameter files with this.

My suggestion (to please all players) would be to instead add an additional difficulty setting called "custom" where the player can choose a mix of the existing difficulty settings (for example slow cars from Junior RC but still simulation-like behaviour) and add this feature as an option there.
Not to mention that it would be a great place for any possible future difficulty (WIP) settings like AI settings or other collision related things (still waiting for a "no collision" option ).

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with adding this feature permanently to the game, I doubt that it would make much (if any) difference to the AI which of the two gets used, I mean even Rotor's big wheels only have a minimal effect on the spheres.
But I guess some AI tests with this feature enabled wouldn't hurt, just to make sure that it really doesn't have a big effect on the AI.

However I'm more concerned about this:

I hackily updated the computations, and here what I came up with

Could you specify what you mean with "hackily"? Also does this have any deeper impact on game performance or is it even (barely) noticable ingame?

ElectricBee wrote:While we're on the subject of code modifications, is there any way to use, say, something similar to cubic beziers to define the shape of the collision?

A bit offtopic but no, it's not possible. And there's no plan about this.

@Citywalker
The 4 wheels shape changes a bit, it's true, but at least it makes it consistent with what we see, which was not the case before and that could be disturbing or even misleading for a car maker. Could it actually change the turning radius of any of the existing cars in a noticeable manner? It's worth testing, but I'm not even sure. And if you take a look at the rotor picture above, which is the worst case scenario for the stock cars, do you really think it'll change the inertia matrix in a way you can notice it when racing? Let me doubt about this.
I understand you concerns but at the same time I see no reason to be that conservative as a principle...

>> not to mention those with three or two wheels
For 2 or 3 wheels, I strongly presume the Offset2 is always null, and in that case it'll make no difference.

@Kenny
Making it a per-mode feature is not a good option. I wanted to explain why in details but it was too long, the fact is a new car designed with it in mind and relying it on it could look wrong without, so we couldn't just switch mode on the fly (though it would still be possible to make it compatible with older build through the &#59;) trick in the parameters.txt).

>> Could you specify what you mean with "hackily"? Also does this have any deeper impact on game performance or is it even (barely) noticable ingame?
I just meant I was using the matrix and vectors as there were at the place of the modification, instead of making it cleaner from the origin. And while doing so I got a weird behavior in my first test (that's why I said I was not sure yet it could actually work), the car was jerking slightly. I though it was a consequence of the modification being hacky... but it's not, I've just found I made a slight but nasty mistake in my updated computation. Now, hacky or not, it works very nicely.

It's just the exe file, it has to be extracted on top of a recent v1.2 alpha. The new collision sphere behavior is enabled by default, but I have added a cheat so that you can directly switch in game between the regular and the updated way.

Type "oldsteer" blindly in game to restore the usual wheel behavior.

Type "newsteer" for the new one.

EDIT: If you want to use the cheats when playing online, remember to be in DEV mode (-dev switch on the command line).

So far I think this is the more stable version of revolt for driving, In most of the tracks I was faster, the driving was smoother, for the first time I felt that I was actually in control of my car, and how every slight steering would make a difference, love it , faster recovery, faster races, you also feel at ease with the steering but don't take for granted that your driving will be a success, full speed ahead!! focus on driving and enjoy the best revolt ever

Dust Mite Tristar / Dust Mite 3 Wheels @ Botanical Garden
The car felt less likely to spin out while traveling corners at-speed. It was a little harder to steer in some instances, probably because I was getting re-acclimated to actually playing the game with the new steering physics.

Toyeca @ Wild West 1 & 2
The car felt a little less forgiving to change directions with, as when I encountered some obstacles I could normally avoid, I instead was unable to really change my direction last-second. I felt like Toyeca didn't quite have the turning circle it once did, but once I got use to it and did some sound braking, I could complete relatively clean laps, and bumps weren't quite the death sentence they once were in some places.

Humma @ Toys in the Hood 2
This was the most surprising of the results; Normally I have to be super-cautious while driving with a stick using this car, but the car became vaguely controllable for once on a joypad.

It felt good going fast. I was able to take turns without spinning out on multiple occasions, something the old steering model made difficult. And from my results earlier, I think it has something to do with how much understeer the new model adds.

ah, in nhood1 i race humma well
Garden too, its the best place where i turn: panga and humma and generally most cars.

but thats with 0820.

i may give that build a try. but i rarely play sp ;c

Yes, I'm the ABC block and you can find me in Toy World 1 track!
Reborn as Juest Zungo PS: I prefer chatting and i have Steam, Skype, Google and Microsoft account, just ask for it via PM or rarely find me in RVHouse. Also check out my interests.

jigebren @ Feb 11 2015, 10:32 PM wrote: Making it a per-mode feature is not a good option. I wanted to explain why in details but it was too long, the fact is a new car designed with it in mind and relying it on it could look wrong without, so we couldn't just switch mode on the fly (though it would still be possible to make it compatible with older build through the trick in the parameters.txt).

1) What would "look wrong" with a car that is designed with this in mind? This feature only affects collision detection so it would only show a noticable difference in special cases where you scratch along a wall or directly collide with it.
And even then it would be a forgiving mistake for it to be shown "incorrectly" (with the original detection).

2) If a car is designed with this in mind and "could look wrong without it" then where's the sense in making it backwards compatible with older versions?

3) What do you mean with "couldn't just switch mode on the fly"? The difficulty setting is chosen in the main menu, it wouldn't be "on the fly". Not to mention that the other difficulty settings also affect physics and collision detection so it would be perfectly valid to make it accessible in a new option there.

Other than these points I stick with what I said in my previous post, adding this feature as a parameter option and therefore only having a few selective cars make use of it wouldn't make sense to me.
Sorry but I just don't see a reason not to use the per-mode option, it would be completely optional for everyone to use and is not stored with each car individually (which is in itself a hassle if you as a user (don't) want to use this feature for all cars).
And again, if you wanted to avoid complaints about the inclusion of this feature it wouldn't be a good idea to add this parameter option to all stock cars and enable it for them.

@build:
After a quick test I didn't notice any particular difference to the original handling and even regarding collision it didn't feel much different, if at all.
But like previously mentioned, the effect on most cars is marginal, so it would be great if someone could tinker together a car/configuration where the effect really goes to the extreme (even more than with Rotor).

so it would be great if someone could tinker together a car/configuration where the effect really goes to the extreme (even more than with Rotor).

Try any of the 6-wheelers available (like Suppressor in Carma 1 pack, Toe Jam in Hot Wheels Pack, some semi from who-was-it (it's in one of the Challenge Packs 1 or 2)). There is even an 8-wheeler: Wardog.

All my stuff is available here and there, and all my videos are available there.
-----
CW

^thanks, Tow Jam is not really affected by this either, however Wardog was a good suggestion (wasn't able to find the other 2 you mentioned).

I'm not sure if this is due to Wardog's parameters or because of a bug in the feature but for some reason steering right causes the collision sphere to wander a bit outside:
(right steer)

(left steer for comparison)

Also it seems even the orientation of the main body of the car is slightly affected here, compare these two frontal pictures and you'll notice the body is slightly tilted in each case (with old steering the car remains completely still):

I'm not sure what to make of it, I guess I'll just wait for a response about the just mentioned issue in Wardog's case and what other people have to say about it

@Kenny, point 1) 2) 3)
Apparently you want to have everything explained in details... so here we go:

As I said I really start worrying about the collision sphere location when working on the camber feature but the fact is that the issue has always been here, as I remember I already found weird that moving the front wheel doesn't have any effect when those wheels are in contact with a wall (given that physics are rather realistic in Re-Volt for every other parts). What I mean here is that I have concern about having a clear design that fixes both the camber and the steering at the same time.

1) What would "look wrong" with a car that is designed with this in mind
If you change the camber angle without the "newsteer" fix it'll change the wheel height. So the collision sphere and the visible wheel are no longer at the same place (just as with front wheels when steering), it means that if a car rely on this missing feature, the visible wheels simply sink into the ground. That's what I call "look wrong".
I used the camber angle example because it's the most noticeable as for steering it's only noticeable when the front wheels are at full lock.

2) If a car is designed with this in mind and "could look wrong without it" then where's the sense in making it backwards compatible with older versions?
If we're aware of the fact above, we can simply compensate for the wheel switch by playing with Offset2 until it fits.
Why haven't we do this in the first place? Because it's boring and unintuitive (one expect the collision to move along with the wheel position) while it's automatic with the suggested fix, and because it still doesn't fix the front wheel wrong behavior when steering.
Anyway if a car maker really wants his car to be retro-compatible, it would still be possible by using a trick like that:

Offset2 -1.50 10.00 0.00; this line is read by v1.1
;&#41; Offset2 0.00 0.00 0.00; this line is only used by v1.2 and overwrite the other

3) What do you mean with "couldn't just switch mode on the fly"?
You can see that the trick above allows to have a version for the v1.1, and one for the v1.2. It doesn't allow to have two versions just for the v1.2 (which would be needed if we need to switch on the fly), and it's not worth adding extra code (or and extra Offset in the parameters.txt file) just for that.

>> if you wanted to avoid complaints about the inclusion of this feature it wouldn't be a good idea to add this parameter option to all stock cars and enable it for them
If there's no incidence on the racing behavior (which is the point of the test build), then there's no longer any reason not to include it for the stock cars by default. Because for those cars there is no glitches to expect because of hacky parameters like with Wardog...

It felt good going fast. I was able to take turns without spinning out on multiple occasions, something the old steering model made difficult. And from my results earlier, I think it has something to do with how much understeer the new model adds.

I just wonder, have you actually compared racing using my last build with "newsteer" cheat against the "oldsteer" cheat? Or have you just compared my last build against what you're used to when playing Re-Volt?

Kenny @ Feb 12 2015, 05:21 PM wrote:I'm not sure what to make of it, I guess I'll just wait for a response about the just mentioned issue in Wardog's case and what other people have to say about it

Precisely, about Wardog, the issue comes for its parameters. The Z axis value of Offset2 is not null, this is a trick that has been used to draw the second axle behind the first, while moving its collision sphere away to align it with the first one.

Anyway, though I think the trick is good and the model is well designed, should we really care about a 8 wheelers which is in fact only a four wheelers with 4 extra wheels that have no collision at all? I mean, it's only visual and brings absolutely nothing to the racing experience.

For me the real question about Wardog is: should we try to allow more than 4 wheels (if possible)? But that another matter and I would not avoid to add a feature like that just for a vehicle that is in such not supported by the game in first place.

I was almost able to qualify driving the "pest control" in the "gold cup" . 4th place in toys in the hood 2!, good reasons Jig you might add “I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now." keep it up

jigebren @ Feb 13 2015, 12:48 AM wrote: Anyway if a car maker really wants his car to be retro-compatible, it would still be possible by using a trick like that

Ah, I didn't know that such a trick was possible. But considering the amount of custom tracks/cars that have some kind of problem regarding compatibility with older versions that haven't been properly addressed by the creators, I think its unlikely that many people will make use of this feature (or even know about it).

Anyway, even after your detailed explanation (thanks btw) I stick with my previous points and I guess there is nothing more to add so I'll just leave it with that.

jigebren @ Feb 13 2015, 01:01 AM wrote:Precisely, about Wardog, the issue comes for its parameters. The Z axis value of Offset2 is not null, this is a trick that has been used to draw the second axle behind the first, while moving its collision sphere away to align it with the first one.

Anyway, though I think the trick is good and the model is well designed, should we really care about a 8 wheelers which is in fact only a four wheelers with 4 extra wheels that have no collision at all? I mean, it's only visual and brings absolutely nothing to the racing experience.

For me the real question about Wardog is: should we try to allow more than 4 wheels (if possible)? But that another matter and I would not avoid to add a feature like that just for a vehicle that is in such not supported by the game in first place.

I did those params for Wardog, it took me a bit of thinking to get them that way yet keep the actual grip points just right.
At the time I thought it worked out quite well.

Kenny wrote: considering the amount of custom tracks/cars that have some kind of problem regarding compatibility with older versions that haven't been properly addressed by the creators, I think its unlikely that many people will make use of this feature (or even know about it).

I know, I was just preempting complaints that it could not be made compatible with the old version, I mean, the old v1.1, not the old 1.2 - private joke to Phantom.

Read again my answer to points 1) 2) 3) and you will see that even if we did want to, it would not be straightforward and would bring more issues than it solves.

ElectricBee wrote:I still hold true to three-wheeled vehicles, at least the three-wheeled Dust Mite being more controllable.

I'd like to believe you but I'm not really convinced so far... This car has Offset2 set to null, in other words the displayed wheel and the collision are perfectly centered, implying this modification has no effect here (BTW the wheels are not reoriented, only location is slightly shifted).

Citywalker wrote:Otherwise, I'm interested what becomes of all this in the end.

Without more feedback about whether it brings any noticeable change in racing behavior or not, there's no way we can take any serious decision. BTW, why don't you get the test build and try yourself if you have any issue with it? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really asking). Because it's now the time to give feedback, not two or six months after the feature is implemented in the next official v1.2 build.

Manmountain wrote:I did those params for Wardog, it took me a bit of thinking to get them that way yet keep the actual grip points just right.

Crawler
Ni visual issue or noticeable collision issue as far as I have tried. The vehicle uses a different trick than Wardog (as it's only a 6 wheelers). Here there is two front wheels, one center wheel and one back wheel, it doesn't rely on a fake Offset2 Y value and thus has no issue here.

Well Jig, it's not that the cars are more controllable per se IMO, it's that the steering is slightly altered in such a way as to make the more difficult cars marginally more tame.

Going (again?) with my Dust Mite 3 Wheels example, it I turn for long enough on my joystick, the rear end gives out. With oldsteer, I fishtail it hard. with newsteer, I swear I can make turns better with it, and if the rear end gives out, I'm more able to restore control and lose less speed.

BTW, why don't you get the test build and try yourself if you have any issue with it? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really asking).

Because I have even less time than you, Jig (also not sarcastic at all). I have enough time to think, but not do. So I prefer to give out ideas, but let others with more free time to build them. Or respectively to give out concerns and let others argue / test them.
If that’s okay with you lot.

All my stuff is available here and there, and all my videos are available there.
-----
CW

@ElectricBee
I'm still very surprised that you can actually notice any difference with Dust Mite 3 Wheels... I don't say it's impossible, otherwise there's no meaning in asking for feedback, but I'm really surprised. I can only ask you to keep trying to be sure. And to ensure that you have the same unmodified parameters.txt than the one from RVZ (the link in my post above), with Offset2 set to 0 0 0 for front wheels (and IsTurnable set to FALSE for back wheels).

@CW
Ok, too bad but that's a valid reason.

@SebR
Thanks for the test guys. If Dolo says it's fine then I assume it is.
But there's no reason I can think of for the cheats not to work. Are you sure you typed them properly? (stupid suggestion I admit, but as there's two "e" and even myself have a tendency to type "oldstter" or "newsster", maybe...).EDIT: Oh wait, you said "online", maybe cheats are disabled by default if online... Let me check.EDIT2: Ok, that was that. To make it work for online races, you have to be in DEV mode. But in your tests it should have been enabled by default anyway.

Well, 15.0131 is no so wrong, isn't it? We have to update this value by hand before a release and I have to admit that's often the last thing I think about.

I made some video if you are interested in ... (dolo feel agree with this gameplay)

note: in game version showed is 15.0131 lol

hep hep i don't feel agree with this gameplay, i just said it was different... not better or something like that, just the grip on the floor seems not bad with some different wall's collisions compared with last (bad) alphas series 12.xxxx 13.xxxx...
For me, nothing will be more enjoyable than to play the beta 11.0208 > the alpha 11.0421, and sorry for that :-)

Currently, the feature is almost finished and planned for the next v1.2 release.

As no obvious issue has emerged from the test build, it sounded safe enough to enable it by default in all modes, instead of using some complex rules like eg. being enabled in Simulation only (as it aims at a better realism) unless a car is marked has relying on it. If needed though, I've let the possibility to disable it from the player's profile. There'll be a line set to CarCompatibility = 0 by default. Turning it to 1 will restore the default behavior and disable new features like this one and the wheels camber as well.

EDIT:
Me apparently not speaking good english. Here is translation:
This feature always enabled by default, all modes, all cars.
But... you can total disable feature in profile.

revolting @ 19 Feb 2015, 10:13 PM wrote:why not have one that allows only (either) the camber or the wheels? just to test

Too many options kills options.

The idea is that either you're happy with evolutions like that, considering that they're regular improvements of the physics engine and that they're not defacing the original gameplay. Or you just can't stand any modification in that case you're left with the possibility to disable the more obvious ones with this option.
But they are not optional features, it doesn't really make sense to add an option for that. If Re-Volt had originally been released with those features already, nobody would ever have complained or tried to disable them.

jigebren @ 19 Feb 2015, 01:14 PM wrote: it sounded safe enough to enable it by default in all modes, instead of using some complex rules like eg. being enabled in Simulation only

Damn, I misread it the first time.

Ok, I thinkI'm sure that here in the forum only 5-7 people actually download and test these test builds and this is why you don't get the enough feedback that you need and want. I've been testing it offline and I could clearly notice the difference in some cars but I cannot yet say it's better or worse, it's just quite different to what I'm used to and would be interesting to hear feedback from the general audience.

I'm not in favor of any more physics changes but considering that the physics in the current v1.2 is already a bit screwed up and the good feeling from old versions can't be restored, I'm open to adding this into the next offical alpha together with the new lag management for massive scale testing so you get the feedback that you need, at least for testing (keep the old code in case).

Finally, since this will be also affecting multiplayer then I got a few questions.

1. How does it work in an online race?
2. Is this something that can be turned off for all players or does it depend on each user's config?
3. If the host disables it, what happens to the guests?
4. If the host has compatibility mode enabled or disabled does it change the behaviour of the wheels?

Edit: I like Huki's suggestion to make a Toggle key, it's simpler than editing profile lines.

We don't stop playing because we get older, we get older because we stop playing.

Phantom @ 20 Feb 2015, 04:21 PM wrote:Ok,&nbsp; I thinkI'm sure that here in the forum only 5-7 people actually download and test these test builds

Very possible, but I'll be happy then to ignore any further complaint from people that refused to try the test build when the question was wide open.

About the Physics, I do rather agree, and there's been quite a lot of reverts about this BTW so the recent builds should be way closer to the original Physics (not to mention that some differences like "huge space between cars" were real bugs that have all been fixed since). Here, though it's a modification indeed, it just makes the Physics a little more accurate with what's going on and what we actually see (we see the front wheels moving, so using fixed collision made not much sense - except probably to avoid extra computations that modern computers are now able to handle perfectly).

It's not just for the pleasure to add modifications, it does make the internal code more consistent for any advanced feature like eg. camber. Anyway I added the compatibility mode just in case, and / or for testing purpose in case of issue, but it's not officially supported and using it is at your own risk...

It implies there's no dedicated support for online race or course, and it would be overkill to think about it. So it actually depends on each user config, whether you're the host or not doesn't change much. Having some users using it and other not will be inconsistent indeed, though I doubt it actually produces noticeable difference at the end.

Edit: I like Huki's suggestion to make a Toggle key, it's simpler than editing profile lines.

No. With a simple toggle key you'll soon forget which mode you're in, that's why I used two distinct cheats (one to disable and one to enable). Plus, it means and extra hardcoded key and this is no good. Plus, currently I've kept it separated but eventually the cheats may be kept and directly bound to the profile CarComp entry for easy (and live) toggle...

Okay, i raced with toyeca and new steer: it felt like old volken turbo steering with toyeca speed, improved turns and its more realistic *approved*

some people don't understand that the real proof of concept is playing with dev and the graphs enabled!

Yes, I'm the ABC block and you can find me in Toy World 1 track!
Reborn as Juest Zungo PS: I prefer chatting and i have Steam, Skype, Google and Microsoft account, just ask for it via PM or rarely find me in RVHouse. Also check out my interests.

I don't know what to say apart from the fact that it feels very different for me. Again, a new game style to get used to if you're sensitive enough. There are no collission issues that can be noticed, just that the steering and the behaviour of the wheels seem a little different. We've tested online a few times today, obviusly always in arcade and stock cars like every day of our life, and I've heard all kinds of critics. From "it's now easier to control the car" to "it's now harder to control the car" or "why do they change this" to "volken turbo with toyeca speed".. I'm speechless to be honest and I guess we should just try to get used to changes like this

I am also curious how is that new ideas like this appear.
Everyone that I've asked to test the new build today has asked me why this was changed when it wasn't needed or has told me that re-volt needs other more important things instead of this.
I'm just sharing a general feedback so don't take me for the pessimistic witch here. I'm trying to be as positive as I can. I may agree that this wasn't needed but I'm also quite curious. How is that things like this emerge? Do you have a list of other pending issues that are issues only from the developing view? Because something like this wasn't an issue at least from the player's perspective (at least for stock cars maybe for customs).

We don't stop playing because we get older, we get older because we stop playing.

Phantom @ 21 Feb 2015, 04:08 AM wrote:From "it's now easier to control the car" to "it's now harder to control the car"

Ok, let me take the average and it gives: it doesn't really change anything at all... (but we do enjoy complaining).

Really? well, as i said, the real proof of concept (difference) is watching in dev

Collision glitches ftw!

Yes, I'm the ABC block and you can find me in Toy World 1 track!
Reborn as Juest Zungo PS: I prefer chatting and i have Steam, Skype, Google and Microsoft account, just ask for it via PM or rarely find me in RVHouse. Also check out my interests.

Phantom @ 21 Feb 2015, 04:08 AM wrote:I am also curious how is that new ideas like this appear.

It's here to allow a wider range of possibility for car making. It also fixes an inconsistency between the Physics and the visual for existing cars.

So it's all for the better IMO if you care about what makes Re-Volt strength: it's custom content and tweaking possibilities and its rather realistic engine.

.. told me that re-volt needs other more important things instead of this

What is the important is just a matter of point of view. Everyone has its own "more important". And as far as I'm concerned I'm still free to chose what I feel like working on, with all due respect to all those smart reviewers I've never seen so far in this topic.

Because something like this wasn't an issue at least from the player's perspective (at least for stock cars maybe for customs).

It has been for me from the day I started playing this game (that is to say long before I could ever imagine I would be able to update its codebase someday) and was astonished at its Physics... until I noticed glitches like this one. Or that the car is slowly sliding on the ground as soon as there's is the slightest slope (which from a Physics point of view makes no sense at all and just look ridiculous). As far as I'm concerned I see no reason to stick with glitches that make the engine still look half finished in some way, just because it's the state Re-Volt was in at the time it has been released.

Well said, i would aim for having a Final version of what the devs started with Acclaim, as that keeps original spirit i would encourage to finish what the original devs started and make a proper engine (updated with the same technology not opengl)

Offtopic and engine related: when will cams bugs be fixed? (the "blind" zone, an area where any cams placed are simply ignored and the game uses the closest cam outside the zone)

EDIT: Sorry jig.

Yes, I'm the ABC block and you can find me in Toy World 1 track!
Reborn as Juest Zungo PS: I prefer chatting and i have Steam, Skype, Google and Microsoft account, just ask for it via PM or rarely find me in RVHouse. Also check out my interests.

Abc @ 22 Feb 2015, 06:58 AM wrote: a bit offtopic but its engine related: when will cams bugs be fixed? (the "blind" zone, an area where any cams placed are simply ignored and the game uses the closest cam outside the zone)

Not a bit offtopic... rather totally offtopic. Open a new thread in the bug section with clear info.